A projected cost-utility analysis of avacopan for the treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) are rare autoimmune diseases characterized by inflammation of blood vessels. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of avacopan in combination with rituximab (RTX) or cyclophosphamide (CYC) compared with glucocorticoids (GC) for the treatment of severe, active AAV in Spain. METHODS: A 9-state Markov model was designed to reflect the induction of remission and sustained remission of AAV over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data and utility values were mainly obtained from the ADVOCATE trial, and costs (€ 2022) were sourced from national databases. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were evaluated. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Avacopan yielded an increase in effectiveness (6.52 vs. 6.17 QALYs) and costs (€16,009) compared to GC, resulting in an ICUR of €45,638 per additional QALY gained. Avacopan was associated with a lower incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), relapse and hospitalization-related adverse events. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the model outputs were robust and that the progression to ESRD was a driver of ICUR. CONCLUSIONS: Avacopan is a cost-effective option for patients with severe, active AAV compared to GC in Spain.

Expert consensus on the use of systemic glucocorticoids for managing eosinophil-related diseases.

Eosinophil-related diseases represent a group of pathologic conditions with highly heterogeneous clinical presentation and symptoms ranging from mild to critical. Both systemic and localized forms of disease are typically treated with glucocorticoids. The approval of novel biologic therapies targeting the interleukin-5 pathway can help reduce the use of systemic glucocorticoids (SGC) in eosinophilic diseases and reduce the risk of SGC-related adverse effects (AEs). In this article, a panel of experts from different medical specialties reviewed current evidence on the use of SGC in two systemic eosinophilic diseases: Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with PolyAngiitis (EGPA) and HyperEosinophilic Syndrome (HES); and in two single-organ (respiratory) eosinophilic diseases: Chronic RhinoSinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) and Severe Asthma with Eosinophil Phenotype (SA-EP), and contrasted it with their experience in clinical practice. Using nominal group technique, they reached consensus on key aspects related to the dose and tapering of SGC as well as on the initiation of biologics as SGC-sparing agents. Early treatment with biologics could help prevent AEs associated with medium and long-term use of SGC.